In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-19-00201-CR __________________ LEON RANDOLPH FOOTS JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 19-06-07664-CR __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A grand jury indicted Appellant Leon Randolph Foots Jr. (“Appellant” or “Foots”) for continuous sexual abuse of a child, with an enhancement allegation for a prior felony conviction. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 21.02(b). Appellant pleaded “not guilty,” and a jury found him guilty of the lesser-included offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child. See id. § 22.021(a)(1)(B); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts.

37.08, 37.09. Appellant pleaded “true” to the enhancement paragraph, and the jury assessed punishment at fifty years of confinement, and Appellant filed a notice of appeal.

On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and applicable law, he concluded that the appeal lacks merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time for Foots to file a pro se brief and Foots filed no response.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new

counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1 AFFIRMED.

_________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on January 21, 2020 Opinion Delivered February 12, 2020 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

Foots may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.